The Anthrax Vaccine: Hiding The Truth

[Guest guest]

" Cancer-CoverUp.com " <webmaster

The CancerCoverUp.com Monthly Newsletter | JANUARY 2005 |

Volume 5, Issue 1

Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:21:22 -0800

 

 

 

 

http://www.cancercoverup.com/newsletter/2006-01/

 

The Anthrax Vaccine: Hiding The Truth

By Kathleen Deoul

 

 

Monthly Newsletter | www.CancerCoverup.com | JANUARY 2006

 

 

Time and time again over more than two centuries, America's young

people have been called to defend the cause of freedom. In each

instance, they have come forward, without fear or reservation, to do

what is right. Today they are again fighting on foreign shores both in

Iraq and Afghanistan trying to assure to others the same benefits of

liberty enjoyed by citizens of the United States. Like their

predecessors, they have chosen to subordinate their own well being and

safety to the greater good. There can be little doubt that their

unselfish sacrifice deserves the gratitude of the protected.

 

But it deserves something else as well. It deserves honesty and that,

in at least one respect, is something that they are not getting.

 

Three years ago, this column first raised the alarm over the mandatory

administration of the Anthrax vaccine to members of the Armed Forces.

Although the Department of Defense claimed that its Anthrax Vaccine

Immunization Program or AVIP posed no serious health threat to the

troops and, more important, was necessary to protect the troops

against the threat of biological weapons - other voices had raised

concerns.

 

Not the least of these was the troops themselves.

 

Indeed, during the initial period following initiation of the AVIP

program hundreds of service members went so far as to face

court-martial rather than be immunized.

 

Ultimately, the controversy found its way into the courts.

 

On December 22, 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

issued a temporary injunction halting the AVIP program because the FDA

had failed to approve the vaccine for inhalation Anthrax, the form

associated with biological weapons. Two weeks later, however, he

lifted the injunction when the FDA issued the necessary approval. In

lifting the ban, though, Judge Sullivan called the timing of the FDA

ruling " highly suspicious. "

 

The Judge's skepticism was more than evident in an exchange with

Shannen Coffin, a Justice Department lawyer representing the Pentagon:

 

" Only after issuance of an injunction, up pops a federal rule, and

you're telling me it's coincidental? " the Judge asked.

 

" I'd stand on a stack of Bibles and tell you it's coincidental. "

Coffin insisted.

 

" That's an amazing coincidence. " Judge Sullivan replied.

 

The legal wrangling, however, was not over.

 

Six service members, whose identity was concealed to protect against

retaliation, still had an ongoing suit against the mandatory

vaccination program based on different facts. They still had not had

their day in court, and quite a day it would be.

 

On October 27, 2004, ten months after Judge Sullivan had been forced

to reinstate the vaccination program by the FDA's oddly timed ruling,

he again ordered a halt to the program. This time his decision was

based on the failure of the FDA to allow appropriate public comment

when it approved the Anthrax vaccine the previous year.

 

In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said:

 

" The men and women of our armed forces deserve the assurance that the

vaccines our government compels them to take into their bodies have

been tested by the greatest scrutiny of all - public scrutiny. "

 

The service member's lawyer, Mark Zaid was ecstatic stating:

 

" It validates our position of six years that the program was illegal

and ill-conceived from day one. "

 

Still, the Department of Defense continued to maintain that there was

no problem insisting that:

 

" DoD remains convinced that the (vaccination program) complies with

all legal requirements and that the Anthrax vaccine is safe and

effective. "

 

Judge Sullivan was not so sure. Moreover, he was sure that there were

many citizens who shared his doubts and who had not been given the

opportunity to express them. In his decision he said:

 

" While some individuals may have submitted comments as part of a

citizen petition, it is clear to this court that if the status of the

Anthrax vaccine were open for public comment today, the agency would

receive a deluge of comments and analysis that might inform an

open-minded agency. "

 

With the new injunction in place, the Defense Department had no choice

but to make taking the vaccine voluntary. Service members soon

demonstrated their doubts, with more than half refusing vaccination.

 

But the battle was far from over.

 

The Pentagon continued to press for approval of the Anthrax vaccine

asserting that it was safe and effective. What made their insistence

all the more difficult to understand was the fact that there was a

substantial body of evidence to suggest that the Anthrax vaccine was

anything but safe and effective.

 

In one study of soldiers at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, 44 percent of

those vaccinated suffered an adverse reaction. In another study

performed at a U.S. military facility in Korea, between 72 percent and

74 percent of all women vaccinated had adverse reactions as did

between 42 percent and 44 percent of the men.

 

Nor was the military the only branch of government that had developed

data questioning the safety of the Anthrax shots.

 

The Government Accounting Office (GAO), the official investigative arm

of the Congress, conducted a study of Air National Guard pilots and

aircrew members who had been vaccinated and found that 37 PERCENT had

SERIOUS adverse reactions and that an astounding 84 PERCENT had some

sort of adverse reaction.

 

Perhaps the most important data developed by the GAO was that almost

ONE-FIFTH of those vaccinated had SYSTEMIC reactions, the most serious

kind. These reactions can have effects that linger for months, years,

or even a lifetime!

 

Remember, the rate of adverse effects found by the GAO was 100 TIMES

that claimed by the vaccine's manufacturer!

 

What is perhaps most disturbing about the Pentagon's insistence on

vaccinating the troops is that the rationale for administering this

dangerous drug no longer exists!

 

The reason that the Defense Department wanted our service members

vaccinated was the strong belief that they might face biological

weapons in Iraq.

 

Now, no matter what you might have read in the press, there really was

good reason for military leaders to have this concern.

 

During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Saddam Hussein used chemical

weapons against his opponent, and was trying to develop biological

weapons - especially Anthrax - as well. Following that conflict, he

also used weapons of mass destruction - again poison gas - against the

Kurds in Northern Iraq, killing at least 100,000. Moreover, during the

first Persian Gulf War, stores of chemical weapons were discovered.

 

There was a substantial body of evidence that in the years following

the first Persian Gulf War he was continuing to try to develop

chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons. So the concern was

valid. As it turned out, however, it was also based on bad information.

 

Interrogations of Iraqi scientists revealed a bizarre truth: They were

so fearful of retribution in the event of failure that they vastly

overstated the degree of progress they were making in the development

of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to their superiors.

Indeed, in large degree their whole program to develop weapons of mass

destruction was a sham, concocted to keep them from earning the Iraqi

dictator's wrath.

 

Therefore, the major reason for insisting that all troops be

inoculated: the potential that their enemy would use biological

weapons against them was no longer present. Despite this fact, the

Pentagon continued to insist on vaccination, and therein lies the problem.

 

No one would argue against vaccinating troops, even if there were a

substantial risk to their health, if there was a reasonable certainty

that they would be exposed to weapons grade Anthrax. Given the

virulence of such biological weapons and the high probability that

without the vaccination many of those exposed would die, it made

sense. But now that the threat no longer exists - if it ever did -

there is no reason to vaccinate them if a substantial risk is involved.

 

Moreover, the experience with the Anthrax attacks that took place in

the United States following the September 11 attack on the World Trade

Center has demonstrated that if treated immediately with high-powered

antibiotics such as Cipro, the effects of exposure can be overcome.

 

Of course, if, as the Pentagon has maintained, the risk of adverse

effects is low, then it might still be prudent to vaccinate the troops

on the chance that someone might develop and use Anthrax against them.

Indeed, this is exactly the argument a parade of high-ranking officers

has made to Congress over the past several years when called upon to

testify on the subject.

 

But now we know that they have not been telling the truth!

 

The Newport News, Virginia, Daily News recently published the results

of an investigation into the Pentagon's Anthrax vaccine program that

revealed the stunning and outrageous truth: the Pentagon has been

hiding the facts about the vaccine's dangers for more than a decade!

 

The article notes how, in their periodic appearances before Congress,

the Pentagon Brass has always said that there were fewer than 100

cases of adverse effects involving hospitalization or serious illness

from the Anthrax vaccine during the period between 1998 and 2000. They

also insisted that their official policy was that any serious illness

or hospitalization associated with the vaccine had to be reported

within 24 hours. As the Daily News discovered, there was a reason why

the numbers were so low: THEY COOKED THE BOOKS!

 

The way they did this was to limit the types of illnesses doctors were

allowed to report as adverse effects from the vaccine. By deliberately

understating the number of adverse effects, they were able to create

the impression that the vaccine was much safer than was actually the case.

 

Now we must be clear here. We are not talking about a difference of a

few hundred cases or even a few thousand. Rather, we are talking about

an adverse effect rate fully 200 TIMES as high as the Pentagon

reported. Instead of less than 100 cases of serious adverse effects,

there were ALMOST 21,000!!! AND THOSE ARE JUST THE MOST SERIOUS CASES!!!

 

Further, in some cases, the types of reactions that went unreported

were not just serious, they were a death sentence. For example, three

cases of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, commonly referred to

as Lou Gehrig's Disease, went unreported.

 

The Pentagon argues that a statistical analysis of the incidence of

the various illnesses and other adverse effects experienced by service

members who were vaccinated were within normal limits. Other medical

experts, however, do not agree.

 

One of the main criticisms stems from the fact that the adverse

effects experienced involve a complex set of symptoms, but the

statistical analysis reviewed symptoms individually. Moreover, the

Pentagon stopped keeping records of adverse events in 2000, even

though the effects of the vaccine might be long-term. What is perhaps

most disturbing about the discontinuation of the Anthrax vaccine

monitoring program is that it failed to meet the standards set by the

National Institute of Medicine, which recommends a minimum of five

years of surveillance.

 

Meanwhile, veterans who were forced to take the vaccine continue to

experience problems. Among the most common are neuropathy - a tingling

in the feet arms and hands, chronic pain in the joints and other

symptoms of arthritis and difficulty in concentrating. Other more

serious problems include things such as ALS.

 

In the face of such complaints, how could the military brass continue

to tell Congress there was no problem?

 

The answer is simple, they played word games.

 

Testifying at a congressional hearing, Lt. General G. Robert Claypool,

who at the time was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Health Operations Policy said:

 

" The duty to report adverse medication events has been codified for

many years. The joint regulation requires submission of a form,

VAERS-1 for all adverse events resulting in more than 24 hours of lost

duty time or any period of hospitalization. These requirements

represent a higher standard than in comparable civilian community

health care settings. "

 

That certainly is an impressive statement, but there's a catch. He

said that all hospitalizations related to adverse medication events

had to be reported, not ALL HOSPITALIZATIONS. But if a particular

symptom or health problem is not classified as a recognized " adverse

event " then it need not be reported.

 

In some cases it may well be that the hospitalizations not reported

were in fact not related to the vaccine. But we will never know if no

attempt is made to determine where the truth lies. Still, it would

seem impossible, after five years, to discover the truth. Things,

however, are not always what they seem.

 

In addition to the VAERS system, the military also maintains another

database: the Defense Medical Surveillance System or DMSS. It is the

most exact and comprehensive database of its kind. The DMSS is capable

of tracking and accessing every item of medical information on every

member of the Armed Forces: every shot, doctor visit, hospitalization

or other medical treatment. The VAERS system pales in comparison.

 

So why not access and analyze this data to put the vaccine debate to

rest once and for all?

 

The Pentagon argues that they cannot figure out how to access the data

and still protect patient privacy.

 

Officials at the National Institute of Medicine have one thing to say

about this claim: NONSENSE!

 

One Institute official put it succinctly:

 

" We use these kinds of data sets in Medicaid and Medicare all the

time. There are technological solutions. "

 

Indeed, the type of epidemiological research access to the DMSS

records would allow is exactly what is needed to get to the truth.

Moreover it is in the Pentagon's interest to find out if the vaccine

is dangerous.

 

As military technology has become more complex, the cost of training

members of the Armed Forces has become increasingly expensive. It can

cost anywhere from a hundred thousand dollars to train an infantryman

to millions of dollars to train a fighter pilot or Special Forces

soldier. But it is not just the money. It also takes time - years in

some instances - to fully train military personnel for some

specialties and it is the most highly trained service members that are

likely to be the first deployed. It is therefore foolish on many

levels to risk their becoming incapacitated by an unsafe vaccine.

 

So why does the military continue to resist scrutiny?

 

Some observers believe it is a matter of control:

 

" If you let independent people have the data, you run the risk of

losing control. In combat, letting things get out of control gets

people killed, so loss of control is a very sensitive issue. "

 

This may be true, but so is needlessly causing illness or injury to

those who volunteer to defend their nation. Yet that is exactly what

is about to happen.

 

On December 19, 2005, the FDA issued a ruling that recognized the

Anthrax vaccine as " safe and effective " against all forms of the

disease. This once again opens the door to a resumption of the

military's mandatory vaccination program. If it is resumed, our

service personnel will once again face the dilemma of taking a vaccine

that poses unknown and potentially fatal side effects or ending their

military careers. It is a choice they should not have to make.